NYstate wrote:These articles never mention the role of the schools in this mess. The decades of lies about employment statistics created the impression that everyone going to law school would find employment at a 6 figure salary. The fraud was enough that lawsuits have been brought against several schools for fraud. The one against NYLS was dismissed because the claims seemed so ridiculous that no rational person would believe them. The highest court in New York vert critically questioned the ethics of the dean and the case has been attempted to be reopened.

This wring impression needs to be corrected.

Also they ignored the role of the availability of federal loans to go to any school in any amount available to any student who gets in. Schools had no incentive to keep tuition low.

Agree. They won't mention the faulty reporting until at least one school loses a fraud suit.

I dunno if your bullshitting some stupid anecdote some homeless lawyer told you/you are the homeless lawyer or not because THERE IS NO DATA. I'd pay an extra 2k in tuition if they started collecting these reports.

Docreviewsux wrote:“The price of legal education has risen as the job market for lawyers has declined. More than two out of every five 2011 graduates did not obtain a full-time long-term job requiring a law degree; the median starting salary of the class, among the less than half of graduates for whom a salary was reported, was $60,000. The problematic economics are captured by this fundamental mismatch: a graduate who earns the median salary cannot afford to make the monthly loan payments on the average debt.”

The point is that even the winners are still likely going to wind up losers.

Neat anecdotes. I doubt that is a very high percentage reality for most T6 grads though...and starting your own business in family law or whatnot CAN be very lucrative, as any small business can be.

There are a ton of problems w/ legal education now and how it is set up. I just hope people sit down long and hard and intelligently decide whether x law school is for them, based on geographic preference, type of work, debt, etc. Too many rush into it and allow for the proliferation of unnecessary law schools.

NYstate wrote:These articles never mention the role of the schools in this mess. The decades of lies about employment statistics created the impression that everyone going to law school would find employment at a 6 figure salary. The fraud was enough that lawsuits have been brought against several schools for fraud. The one against NYLS was dismissed because the claims seemed so ridiculous that no rational person would believe them. The highest court in New York vert critically questioned the ethics of the dean and the case has been attempted to be reopened.

This wring impression needs to be corrected.

Also they ignored the role of the availability of federal loans to go to any school in any amount available to any student who gets in. Schools had no incentive to keep tuition low.

Docreviewsux wrote:“The price of legal education has risen as the job market for lawyers has declined. More than two out of every five 2011 graduates did not obtain a full-time long-term job requiring a law degree; the median starting salary of the class, among the less than half of graduates for whom a salary was reported, was $60,000. The problematic economics are captured by this fundamental mismatch: a graduate who earns the median salary cannot afford to make the monthly loan payments on the average debt.”

The point is that even the winners are still likely going to wind up losers.

Neat anecdotes. I doubt that is a very high percentage reality for most T6 grads though...and starting your own business in family law or whatnot CAN be very lucrative, as any small business can be.

There are a ton of problems w/ legal education now and how it is set up. I just hope people sit down long and hard and intelligently decide whether x law school is for them, based on geographic preference, type of work, debt, etc. Too many rush into it and allow for the proliferation of unnecessary law schools.

You are dead on. IMO the increase in law school prices is driven by the law professors. Unless there is a large capital improvement going on, the bulk of tuition is going to professors, some who work 20 hours per week, recyle their classes and write something once a year. Contracts, Property, and Wills classes have virtually remained unchanged in the last 30 years. More students going to school=the potential for more law professors=hiring of new professors to replace higher salaried older ones. I don't think there should be tenure in the law school setting either. Professors are not saying don't go for the law student's benefit. There are too many lawyers and too few jobs at every level of practice.

I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.

NYstate wrote:These articles never mention the role of the schools in this mess. The decades of lies about employment statistics created the impression that everyone going to law school would find employment at a 6 figure salary. The fraud was enough that lawsuits have been brought against several schools for fraud. The one against NYLS was dismissed because the claims seemed so ridiculous that no rational person would believe them. The highest court in New York vert critically questioned the ethics of the dean and the case has been attempted to be reopened.

This wring impression needs to be corrected.

Also they ignored the role of the availability of federal loans to go to any school in any amount available to any student who gets in. Schools had no incentive to keep tuition low.

Agree

So the problem is it being too easy to get loans, not the prices. If it was harder to get the 200k loan to go to Cooley, and one had to put together a business plan like they had to to take out a small business loan then they would need to actually research the schools and argue why they are a good bet rationally. The prices would fall, and special snowflake syndrome would be less rampant.

People expect post-college education to be a fiduciary and look out for the best interests of society. Whether or not they should morally be held to this standard is debatable, but obviously the courts don't believe they should be legally. Therefore, the real focus should be at the government, and not at the schools. The scam schools in the 4th tier are privately owned businesses. If the business is selling something very overpriced, the rational consumer would not buy it. If a shocking number of consumers are irrational, the government should not lend them money to make the irrational purchase.

NYstate wrote:These articles never mention the role of the schools in this mess. The decades of lies about employment statistics created the impression that everyone going to law school would find employment at a 6 figure salary. The fraud was enough that lawsuits have been brought against several schools for fraud. The one against NYLS was dismissed because the claims seemed so ridiculous that no rational person would believe them. The highest court in New York vert critically questioned the ethics of the dean and the case has been attempted to be reopened.

This wring impression needs to be corrected.

Also they ignored the role of the availability of federal loans to go to any school in any amount available to any student who gets in. Schools had no incentive to keep tuition low.

Insofar as they even had some incentive to keep tuition from rising as rampantly, in 2007, Florida governor Crist signed into law a bill that allowed state universities to charge a "tuition differential" to cover whatever projected costs would be necessary to stay "competitive" with respect to research, etc. Tuition has increased almost 100% since then...

And the stuff some of these unis are using that extra money for is disgusting. One uni funded a $50 million venture that helps people found tech startups and file patents on which they get half of the profits. So if you are a full-time student, you pay roughly $1000/semester extra to fund startups that lead to further university profits. These startups do good research, but students don't get anything out of them, and there's a strong moral argument to be made about why students are forcibly subsidizing this research through student loans.

kappycaft1 wrote:You see, the thing is that people say that the turnover rate with biglaw is extremely high, but I currently work at the headquarters of one of the largest automotive firms in the world and the turnover rate (of engineers) is also extremely high here. Many of the people that I work with hate their jobs, and we lose most (70%) of our new hires after about 2-4 years. When I previously worked for a world-class consulting firm in Tokyo, the turnover rate was high there as well. With all of these jobs, people are either built for the job and love it (the minority), or despise working ridiculous hours and traveling all the time and hate it (the majority). At least with biglaw it sounds like one doesn't have to travel as much, even though the hours suck. Additionally, the starting pay at biglaw is about 2x as much as these other jobs.

While I agree that there are too many lawyers out there right now, I honestly believe that this is the fault of random shitty schools that are pumping out random shitty lawyers. I also find it funny that the law professors who are speaking out about going to law school are usually working at these random shitty law schools. Just to give one example, let's look at HYS versus Cooley. Here are the number of students that graduated from each of these institutions in 2012:

Yale: 222Harvard: 590Stanford: 181Total: 993

Cooley: 1079

Even GULC, which is known among the T14 as being a "diploma mill," only graduated 626 students in 2012. Although many of the issues with the current legal market are caused by there being too many lawyers, this is in turn a result of there being too many law schools. A simple solution would be to do away with a ton of these POS institutions that are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from students (and taxpayers) and leaving them with nothing.

I more or less agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that there are plenty of people who attend top schools who lack interpersonal skills and networking basics to get a job or have a career. On the flip side, there are mouthbreathers at Cooley who can instinctively manage social situations and get a job. Networking, the ability to make people comfortable around you, social savy to know when not to voice an opinion, etc., is under appreciated. These skills are responsible for getting some people into large firms, but more importantly they explain how near 100% of all other legal jobs are had. I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.

I don't get it. Okay, so one dude from your school networks his way into a job, that just means one less job for someone else. We're not creating jobs here, just competing against one another in a zero-sum game. On an individual level it might make sense to give this sort of advice, but looking at your school overall, it'd be better to tell half the class (or three-quarters or however many) to drop out.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.

I don't get it. Okay, so one dude from your school networks his way into a job, that just means one less job for someone else.

95% of employed grads at my school networks his/her way into their job.

cinephile wrote:We're not creating jobs here, just competing against one another in a zero-sum game. On an individual level it might make sense to give this sort of advice, but looking at your school overall,

I agree. But in a sense the entire economy is a zero-sum game. I'd rather have my friends get jobs than people who went to other law schools. I was giving advice on an individual sense.

Sure, but on TLS people always say "bottom half should drop out." At the vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely to get a job as top third because networking, interpersonal skills, luck, etc., get you a job, not grades. Alls I was sayin.

FamilyLawEsq wrote:I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.

No, absolutely not. First off, social mobility. Second off, learn how markets work before spouting this asinine opinion. Third, have some damn consideration for idealism and what you find to be qualities our society should strive for regardless of lost monetary gains.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.

I don't get it. Okay, so one dude from your school networks his way into a job, that just means one less job for someone else.

95% of employed grads at my school networks his/her way into their job.

cinephile wrote:We're not creating jobs here, just competing against one another in a zero-sum game. On an individual level it might make sense to give this sort of advice, but looking at your school overall,

I agree. But in a sense the entire economy is a zero-sum game. I'd rather have my friends get jobs than people who went to other law schools. I was giving advice on an individual sense.

Sure, but on TLS people always say "bottom half should drop out." At the vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely to get a job as top third because networking, interpersonal skills, luck, etc., get you a job, not grades. Alls I was sayin.

95% of employed grads at your school networks their way into a job? Not sure if you're damning the school or complimenting it lol. Either way, these sound like shady law school stats! 95% of 20 people from a class of 300...would mean pretty much nothing.

On the idea that at a vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely as top third to get a job...that's interesting; could very well be true. My, my, if it were, I'd hope that information would be circulated more for those making such decisions.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.

I don't get it. Okay, so one dude from your school networks his way into a job, that just means one less job for someone else.

95% of employed grads at my school networks his/her way into their job.

cinephile wrote:We're not creating jobs here, just competing against one another in a zero-sum game. On an individual level it might make sense to give this sort of advice, but looking at your school overall,

I agree. But in a sense the entire economy is a zero-sum game. I'd rather have my friends get jobs than people who went to other law schools. I was giving advice on an individual sense.

Sure, but on TLS people always say "bottom half should drop out." At the vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely to get a job as top third because networking, interpersonal skills, luck, etc., get you a job, not grades. Alls I was sayin.

DoubleChecks wrote:95% of employed grads at your school networks their way into a job? Not sure if you're damning the school or complimenting it lol.

I suppose in a way I am damning my school. For 95% of the class, going to CU might help-- employers view the school in a positive light because CU is the most selective law school for about 1000 miles. But these students will get their jobs by networking, maybe with CU alums maybe not. You could argue that the school is still getting them the job because the students can talk up their education and experience from the school, but really the student is selling themselves in this situation, the school is not selling them. That is the case for every law school outside the top 15 or so. For T1- TTTT, your grades don't get you a job unless you are at the tippity top. It not like at Columbia, where you can graduate in the top half and essentially get your job based on your school/rank; either through OCI or by sending out hundreds of cover letters and resumes with your class rank. OCI accounts for less than 5% of hiring here, and accounts for only marginally higher percentages at regional schools in larger legal markets. From schools like CU, Tulane, Wisconsin, whatever, sending out cover letters to strangers that mention you're top half, top 1/3, top 20% doesn't help much; it might help get you a meeting but you won't be hired based on your school/grades. And usually the person who gets you a job will have encountered you, in person, before encountering your resume.

Re-reading this gives me the sneaking suspicion that I explained this poorly. My apologies if that is the case. Still clicking submit.

DoubleChecks wrote:Either way, these sound like shady law school stats! 95% of 20 people from a class of 300...would mean pretty much nothing.

Confused... What?

DoubleChecks wrote:On the idea that at a vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely as top third to get a job...that's interesting; could very well be true. My, my, if it were, I'd hope that information would be circulated more for those making such decisions.

We'd all rather be top 1/3 than bottom 1/3, so "just as likely" isn't entirely true. But for all intents and purposes someone in the bottom 1/3 has nearly the same chance of employment as someone in the top 1/3 for the reasons discussed. As far as why this information isn't cirulated much, I can only guess. I've found TLS is a bit heavy on advice for students who go to "top" schools. There are a few posters who do attend more average schools, and with some patience you can find their advice.

DoubleChecks wrote:Either way, these sound like shady law school stats! 95% of 20 people from a class of 300...would mean pretty much nothing.

Confused... What?

Was just pointing out that saying "95% of those who are employed did it through networking" means very little without the raw numbers to back it up. 95% of 20 people is very different from 95% of 1000. Reminded me of law school employment stats that mislead folks, saying 94%* are employed and make a median of $90,000** nine months out from graduating.

*of those who responded to our at times selective survey**of those who noted their salary from the group of people who suffer from selection biased and responded to the survey in the first case

STCL was one of the most egregious offenders a few yrs ago. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they had 75% salary of $145,000 being reported on their website...to bad it was based off of like single digit %s of those who actually responded to that question. Literally a handful of people lol.

FamilyLawEsq wrote:I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.

No, absolutely not. First off, social mobility. Second off, learn how markets work before spouting this asinine opinion. Third, have some damn consideration for idealism and what you find to be qualities our society should strive for regardless of lost monetary gains.

Owning a law firm for the last 30+ years, having a daughter graduate from law school in 2011 and hiring law students in this economy gives me a pretty good idea of how the market works. Perhaps I am being paternal, but again this is my personal opinion, having been there, done that, seen that, and still seeing it.

FamilyLawEsq wrote:I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.

No, absolutely not. First off, social mobility. Second off, learn how markets work before spouting this asinine opinion. Third, have some damn consideration for idealism and what you find to be qualities our society should strive for regardless of lost monetary gains.

Owning a law firm for the last 30+ years, having a daughter graduate from law school in 2011 and hiring law students in this economy gives me a pretty good idea of how the market works. Perhaps I am being paternal, but again this is my personal opinion, having been there, done that, seen that, and still seeing it.

I support you FamilyLawEsq! lol, if not only because sinfiery's comment was actually extremely hypocritical. Your original comment was both reasonable and a "personal belief." His reaction seems unwarranted and over the top to me, where I almost wonder if he was just trolling you in the first place.

Taking on 150k+ in debt from say Chicago is an infinitely better investment than 100 or even 75k from a school like Dayton. I'm pretty debt averse and pretty adamantly against sticker outside of HYS, but this 50% rule is really silly. There are schools where biglaw +AIII rates are higher than most schools' lawyer job placement total. That should be kept in mind in advising people.

DoubleChecks wrote:You are dead on. IMO the increase in law school prices is driven by the law professors. Unless there is a large capital improvement going on, the bulk of tuition is going to professors, some who work 20 hours per week, recyle their classes and write something once a year. Contracts, Property, and Wills classes have virtually remained unchanged in the last 30 years. More students going to school=the potential for more law professors=hiring of new professors to replace higher salaried older ones. I don't think there should be tenure in the law school setting either. Professors are not saying don't go for the law student's benefit. There are too many lawyers and too few jobs at every level of practice.

I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.